A new memo from USCIS and ICE seeks to detain all refugees who have been in the U.S. for more than a year and who have not yet received their Green Cards. This policy represents a cruel and pointless betrayal of our nation’s commitment to human rights, and will cause severe harm to many thousands of vulnerable people. In other words, it’s business as usual for the Trump Administration.
The legal basis for the new policy can be found at Section 209(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That section states, “Any alien who has been admitted to the United States” as a refugee, “who has been physically present in the United States for at least one year, and who has not acquired permanent resident status, shall, at the end of such year period, return or be returned to the custody of the Department of Homeland Security for inspection and examination for admission to the United States as” a lawful permanent resident (a Green Card holder). The Administration has seized on the words “shall… return or be returned to… custody” to support its unprecedented position that legally-admitted refugees should be arrested and held in detention if they have not received a Green Card after their first year in the United States.
It has never been the practice of the U.S. government to detain refugees under these circumstances, and in fact, it is effectively impossible for a refugee to obtain a Green Card after only one year in the United States. According to USCIS’s own instructions, a refugee cannot even apply for a Green Card until they have been “physically present in the United States for at least one year after [their] admission as a refugee” (though a 2023 memo allows refugees to apply earlier). It typically take a year or two to process a refugee Green Card (or longer, given the “pause” on nationals from “banned” countries), and so even if refugees apply as soon as possible, they will not have their residency within one year of arrival and they will be subject to detention based on the new memo.
ICE’s prior policy held that a refugee’s failure to obtain a Green Card, by itself, was not a basis for detention. Further, if a refugee was detained, they could not be held for more than 48 hours unless the government planned to initiate removal proceedings against the person. One reason that ICE declined to detain such refugees was because “an alien’s failure to adjust status [i.e., obtain a Green Card] or apply for adjustment… is not a ground of removability.” Because a refugee could not be deported for failing to get a Green Card, there was no reason to detain that refugee.
Fast forward to today, where the Trump Administration has condemned refugees as criminals and fraudsters, and where the goal seems to be to detain and terrorize as many non-citizens as possible. To that end, USCIS is taking an extreme view of the immigration law. As I see it, the law distinguishes between being “detained” and being taken into “custody.” The new memo interprets “custody” as synonymous with “detention.” It is not. The Immigration and Nationality Act uses both words, and in general, custody refers to a custodial relationship, where one party has control or responsibility for another. For example, when a parent has custody over their child. This is not the same as “detention” (as much as we parents might sometimes want our children to be detained). I remain hopeful that courts will recognize the extreme and damaging nature of how the government is interpreting the law, and that they will block the new policy. Indeed, at least one court has already halted refugee detentions in Minnesota.
If you are a refugee, what should you do? First, refugees (and all other non-citizens) should know their rights and have a plan in case they are detained. Second, if you are eligible and have not yet filed for your Green Card (using form I-485), you should probably do so. There is some risk in applying, as ICE has detained some refugees with pending I-485 applications. However, there is also a risk in failing to apply, and in the cases I have heard about, refugees who were detained and who had pending applications were interviewed while detained, issued Green Cards, and release within days. If you are not sure whether applying makes sense, or if you have a criminal or other issue, talk to a lawyer before filing the I-485.
Refugees are among the most vulnerable members of our society. The Trump Administration’s sudden and unexpected attack on this group is yet another demonstration of its unmitigated cruelty. The Administration is lying about who refugees are and mis-characterizing them as a threat to our nation. It is then using these falsehoods to justify harming people who have already been subject to terrible suffering.
Given the questionable legality of the new refugee policy, I am hopeful that courts will intervene to block its implementation. Even so, it has already done tremendous damage to a community that we welcomed to our country and promised to protect. Aside from the harm to refugees, what does that say about us?
So today at supreme court hearing the majority conservative judges argued that if a person present him/herself at the border, the US government can deny them a chance to persent their case aka credible fear because the person is not present on the USA soil. Eventhough I am not a lawyer, as a lay man, I can deduce that the border is completely shut down not by building the wall but my the decision of the Supreme court. So asylum as border is dead.
Dear Jason, what do you think as a lawyer? I am right by saying the asylum at border is dead forever or at least as far as the conservative majority is kept at supreme court?
We will have to see how the decision looks when it is issued, but I think you are very likely correct and that they will find a way to say that the Executive Branch does have the authority to end asylum at the border. If they reach that conclusion, I think it will be a fairly dishonest interpretation of the asylum law, which states: “Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum…” So Congress has created a right to seek asylum at the border, but by preventing people from reaching the border, they are blocked from that right. You can imagine how that would look in other contexts: You have the right to vote, but the police will block your path to the polling place. You have freedom of religion, but the police won’t allow you to get to church. Only Congress should be able to change the law, and once again this will be an example of the Supreme Court increasing the power of the Presidency at the expense of Congress. Not to mention hurting many people and continuing our country’s abdication of its human rights ideals and world leadership. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason ,
Thanks for all the concrete advises that you give.
I need an advise on travelling , my case has been reffered to court and the mch is in a year and half time, I am not from the banne country , been here for 10 years , no criminal record , entered the US on visa and filed the asylum before the visa expiry date basically three months after landing so have not acrued any unlawful presence.
my question is that in the current circumstances , is it safe to travel domestically within the US by air travel for official reasons.
Thanks
Sam
Different attorneys are giving different advice on this. Some lawyers are telling people in this position that they should not travel domestically, and there are reports about people being detained. The examples of this seem to be mostly after they reach their destination. That said, I do not have a lot of details about the people who were detained and it may be that they have criminal issues or already have removal orders. I think there is some risk, and so you should be prepared for that if you travel, and you should have a plan in case you are detained. However, having entered the US with a visa, you would be eligible for release on a bond from an Immigration Judge. This puts you in a better position than many people who entered without a visa at the border, and who have to file federal lawsuits (habeas corpus lawsuits) to try to get released. Given that you are eligible for a bond, it is likely that you would not be detained in the first place. You never know, however, and it is best to be prepared for any eventuality. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason
My individual I589 has been pending for 7 years(filed when i was single).
Later, after 3 years, when I met and was ncluded in my husband’s I-589 which was approved at court and I730 approved as well, I now have derivative status along with pending asylum from my own case.
I am planing to withdraw my individual case since I already have derivative status. I have some confusion regarding the $100 payment. When I login to USCIS and put my A number and case number, it shows $100 fee.
Since, I am withdrawing my own pending case, do I still have to make that payment or withdrawing the case now, waives that payment? I am getting mixed responses on how that billing works so can you please clarify?
Make the payment and then withdraw the case or
Withdraw the case, which will automatically null the $100 due(i don’t know)?
The payment for asylum is new, and was not particularly well implemented, and so I do not think there is a clear answer to this question. However, the penalty for not paying is probably just denying your asylum case, which you don’t need anyway. I think whether you choose to pay is your decision, but you should try to withdraw as soon as possible, as you certainly will not have to pay if your case is withdrawn. I wrote about the process of withdrawing and how to do it on December 7, 2022. Take care, Jason
I have asked you before about changing from TPS to F-1, while having an asylum case pending. My asylum interview is coming up on mid-April. I have consulted with another lawyer. He said the following:
“The possible issue is that, to be granted change of status to F-1, you have to demonstrate that you intend to return to Yemen after your F-1 status and that you have ties there currently (e.g., a family home, property, bank account, and so on). This, of course, seems at odds with an asylum application, which alleges that you cannot return to your home country due to risk of persecution. But you could try saying, stating in an affidavit, that you have always complied with U.S. immigration laws in the past, and you intend to always comply with U.S. immigration laws in the future. Therefore, your intention is to leave the United States at the completion of your legal status in the United States, despite any risks to your safety there. Your asylum will not be affected by an F-1 change of status, as there is no legal basis for that. The only risk in my opinion is that USCIS could deny the F-1 change of status saying you didn’t establish nonimmigrant intent—that you intend to return. But, again, you could try addressing the issue as I stated above. And, if you want the option for F-1 change of status you must file the I-539 before May 4th, otherwise it will be denied after the TPS expires, even if your asylum is still pending.”
What do you think of their response? Especially their strategy to making the case for USCIS? Do you think that it might work?
I think that makes sense. My only caveat is that I think you do not need to show that you will return to Yemen. You just need to show that you do not have an immigration intent. The asylum application is evidence that you intend to stay here, but you may be able to overcome that with other evidence. I also think it is possible that if the change of status is denied, USCIS will refer you to Immigration Court. They really should not do that because you have an affirmative asylum case pending. However, USCIS is more frequently referring people to court when an application is denied, and so I think that is a possibility. Take care, Jason
Thanks for the important caveat. If USCIS denied the change of status and inadvertently referred me to an Immigration Court, what are the consequences that would ensue from that? Would I still be able to navigate my affirmative asylum through USCIS, especially my upcoming interview in mid-April? What happens when someone is referred to an Immigration Court? Is it, in and of itself, a bad outcome to be referred to an Immigration Court? Is Immigration Court better or worse than USCIS—better or worse in the sense of processing and facilitating immigration requests?
Do you think something like the following does the trick of establishing non-immigrant intent and at the same time not put the request at odd with asylum?
“I came to the United States in 2016 as a student F-1 visa. I got my bachelor’s degree in psychology and religion from the XXX, master’s degree in international education from XXX, and PhD from XXX. Ever since I came here as a F-1 student, I never overstayed my visa. Nor do I ever violated any immigration law. Ever since I came to the United States, I have been in full compliance with immigration law—and I plan to keep that way.
When I was pursuing my graduate studies, my school advisors recommended that I change my status from F-1 to Temporary Protected Status (TPS), so I followed their advice. But since TPS has been cancelled effective on May 4, 2026, I no longer can continue my studies in the cancelled TPS, so to be able to continue my studies, I am reverting back to F-1 student status.”
What do you think of something like this to be put in an affidavit to make the fine-line case? Also why do you think that the asylum might lead USCIS to cancel the change of status? At the same time, why does the change of status cannot impact the pending asylum? Why does it lack legal basis? Common sense would have that a rejected change of status might have some bearings to asylum, but it seems there is no legal basis for that, but why?
I think what you wrote is fine, but I do not see that it addresses the biggest problem – you have indicated your desire to stay permanent in the US by filing for asylum. USCIS will generally not give an F visa to someone who has an intent to stay permanently in the US. I am not saying that the change of status will for sure be denied, as I think it may be approved despite the asylum application, but it is possible that it will be denied. Stating that you will abide by the law no matter what the outcome of your asylum case may help convince USCIS, but that is difficult to predict. I do not think that a denied I-539 would have an effect on your asylum case, unless there was something in the I-539 case that USCIS concludes is fraudulent, or which contradicts statements you made in your asylum case (or other USCIS cases or visas). Take care, Jason
I think it is almost impossible that you would receive a decision in a change of status case before mid-April. The form I-539 usually takes six months or longer. By then, the “hold” on asylum cases may be ended and you could have a decision on your case. If you do not have a decision and USCIS refers you to court, the affirmative asylum case (at the asylum office) will automatically end, and you will need to file a new asylum applications in court. Essentially, you will need to start over from zero in court (though of course, you can re-file all the material from your asylum case at the asylum office). Generally, it is probably better to do the case at the asylum office, as you have a second chance to try for asylum if you get referred to court. If you are in court, that is basically your one chance to win asylum (aside from any appeals). Take care, Jason
Basically, what I get from you here is that I should pursue the affirmative asylum without any interference of change of status that might inadvertently wind me up in an Immigration Court, at which case then my asylum would have to start all over again. From what I understand from you, it seems that the change of status in and of itself doesn’t affect asylum, but if it was denied, then I might get referred to an Immigration Court, at which point the asylum won’t happen in the Asylum Office. If those summation of your comments are accurate, then it would behoove me to pursue the asylum without any interference. Does this mean that I also should not file adjustment of status through the EB 2 NIW? Because if that is rejected too, I might find myself in an Immigration Court? Is it better now just to apply for asylum and the EB 2 NIW (just the petition) and wait for response before I do any adjustment of status and to refrain from any change of status from TPS to F-1?
I really can’t say for sure about all this without carefully reviewing the case, and so I think you need to talk to a lawyer about specifics (which I think you have done). I do think there is some risk that if USCIS denies a case, they will refer you to court, where you will have to file again for asylum. However, it sounds like you have an asylum interview next month, and if that is the case, you probably need to focus on that, as any other case with USCIS may not be decided before the asylum case is decided. Depending on the strength of the asylum case and your goals/willingness to tolerate risk, it may make sense to pursue a case with USCIS also, but you need to talk that through with a lawyer who is familiar with the specifics of your case and can help evaluate the best way to proceed. Take care, Jason
Yup, I have already spoken to a lawyer (you) and I noticed that you were not excited about the prospect of a TPS-to-F-1 change of status, so I take it that your recommendation is to pause that until the coast is clear for asylum. But I also wonder what about the change of status from TPS-to-EB-2 NIW, does it operate on the same principle as the TPS-to-F-1 change of status? Basically, do you recommend that I do not do any change of status now until I know what the outcome of my asylum and of the petition portion of EB 2 NIW?
Sorry, I do not remember the details of our conversation. If you have valid TPS status, you should be able to change to another status or get a green card based on employment, but there may be issues if you did not enter lawfully or are in Immigration Court. Without a real memory of the case, I cannot recommend a path to you here. Also, if you do the asylum case and it is denied, and you are referred to court, that will make it much more difficult, or maybe impossible, to get a green card based on employment or to change to an F-1 without leaving he U.S., and so you should keep that in mind when you make your decision. Take care, Jason
My case has been pending since 2017. I recently paid the $100 fee, and my case status now says the next step is testing and an interview. I really want this process to be over, but at the same time I feel scared.
Has anyone here had a case pending for a long time and recently gone to the Miami office? If so, could you please share your experience to give me a little hope?
Right now I feel like my back is against the wall.
I have not had a case in Miami in some time, but as you may know, while the asylum offices are scheduling interviews, they are not issuing decisions. All decisions are on hold, at least until USCIS improves its security background check process (personally, I think this is nonsense, but that is what they say). That said, you can probably file a mandamus lawsuit to force them to at least get you an interview (talk to a lawyer to be sure, as some jurisdictions require people to wait for a long time before they file the mandamus). Though you can’t get a decision yet, if you complete the interview, you will get the decision once the hold is lifted. Of course, you probably don’t want to try that until your case is done and ready to go, and also you may want to talk with a lawyer to explore other options, aside from asylum, before you pursue the mandamus. Take care, Jason
Thanks Jason for all what you’ve been doing for us.
I have two questions please.
1- My wife’s pending asylum case is not showing on the USCIS website and every time I put the case number, it says: “ your case is not found”. However, when I check the case status on the website provided by USCIS itself, it says “Next step is an interview”. It was paper filing back on 1/2/2018. Do you think paper filing is why it’s not showing?
2- My H1-B visa expired 1/12/2018 “after filing the asylum by my wife within the one-year deadline”. I am qualified for EB-2 NIW since I have a master’s degree and long years of experience. Given my last H-1B ended 01/12/2018, do you agree I’m barred from EB adjustment because I exceed 245 (k)’s 180 days?
Although I was lawfully admitted to the U.S. on H-1B last entry (08/14/2012), I understand that meeting INA §245(a) alone is not enough to adjust status through an employment-based case “Eb-2 NIW”.
My H-1B status expired on 01/12/2018, so I have been out of nonimmigrant status far longer than the 180-day forgiveness period under INA §245(k), even though my asylum application was filed on 01/02/2018 and I have had no unauthorized employment periods.
Your feedback would be highly appreciated Sir.
Thanks
1 – If you are referring to the USCIS portal, an asylum case filed by paper will not appear there, so maybe that is the issue. 2 – I think you may be eligible under 245(k) or Matter of L-K-, a BIA decision from 2004. One problem here is that USCIS seems to give inconsistent results for people in your situation, so it would be worth talking to a local lawyer to see if they have had any luck with such cases at you local office. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
Hope all is well with you. Appreciate you for your help by answering our queries.
Our upcoming individual hearing is in Sept,2026.We are 5 members 3 of them were minors when we(me and my wife applied asylum 2015,now when we had asylum interview at 2022 and sent to immigration court all minors got separate Notice to appear but all they are with same date same judge almost everything same with me.
Now I have questions of 2 of my family member we talked about this before also ,thanks again for your response.All we have EAD Valid till 2028.
1. One of the my son got job in IT sector and he moved other state as he got job there.
so what is the other way for him to keep continue in the job incase our case denied in up coming individual hearing. Can you give any suggesation in such scenario. Please
2.One of my son got married with non American citizen in last December, so what he can do to stay till any other opportune. Can he apply new asylum application, if he can what happens his current EAD,DL
valid till 2028. Can he atten his individual hearing schedule in Sept 2026?
Best regards
Jhampa
When a family gets referred from the Asylum Office to court, each person gets their own Notice to Appear, so that is normal. As to the questions: 1 – Maybe the company can sponsor him and he can ask the Immigration Judge for Voluntary Departure, leave the US, process the work visa overseas, and then return to the US with a work visa. Whether this is possible depends on many factors, and if he wants to try, he should talk to a lawyer about the specifics (in rare circumstances, it may even be possible to get the visa without leaving the US, but this is very unlikely and he can ask a lawyer about that option). In most cases like this, getting the new work visa is not possible, but if the company wants to sponsor him, maybe it is worth talking to a lawyer about his options. 2 – If he got married, he is automatically removed from his parent’s asylum application and he needs to file his own application as soon as possible. Once he is married, he is no longer a dependent on the parent’s case, but he is still subject to the one-year asylum bar. During the time before he was married, when he was a dependent asylum seeker, that qualifies for an exception to the one-year filing rule. But as soon as he married, he is no longer a dependent and is required to file his own application within a “reasonable period of time,” which usually means a few months. If he does not file his own application quickly, he could be barred from asylum as having filed too late. Whether the marriage gives him other opportunities to get status in the US, I do not know, but it would be worth discussing with a lawyer. In terms of his EAD, technically, once he married and was removed from the case, he was no longer eligible for an EAD. However, this is a grey area of the law, and I do not know that there is any penalty to using his current EAD. If he files his own I-589, he can apply for an EAD based on that once he is eligible. In terms of the court hearing in September 2026, he would need to defend and present any defenses to being deported. Take care, Jason
Thanks Jason, appreciate you.
I want to ask…
Since so many of us cannot get work authorization.
Can I grab things from store ?…I mean I see people do that and police don’t care…
Even if prosecuted for theft, can asylum seekers assert necessity defense to avoid conviction ? Because if they don’t have income, how can they survive without food, if they don’t steal…
Are you completely delusional? If you’re broke and starving, literally just Google a local Food Bank. They give out free food no questions asked. Why tf would your first thought be to steal?Bro really thinks dropping ‘necessity defense’ in court is a cheat code. The second you catch a shoplifting charge, USCIS is gonna slap you with a CIMT, and ICE will pack your bags for a one way flight home. Go ahead and ruin your own life if you want, but stop making the rest of us look bad.
Have you been in a position where you don’t have money and can’t work ?
Food banks are swamped and the lines are long. I don’t have all day to stand there. I have other things to take care of. A lot of times they are also closed. For example during Xmas and new year…if I don’t have food at that holiday and the food banks are closed. Where can I go ?
.
Hi Jason,
Can one get global entry through RTD instead of passport?
I am not sure. I seem to remember some asylee clients having Global Entry, but I am not sure, sorry. Take care, Jason
Do you think the fact that Noem was fired will bring positive changes to DHS? Do you think that the new guy will follow the tradition of Border Czar, who cleared up the mess in Minnesota after Noem-like Bovino? Do you think TPS are going to be adjudicated somewhat differently now that Noem is gone and the Senator present? What changes do you think are likely to happen under the new leadership?
I don’t know much about the new person. He seems very unqualified, and as far as I know, he has no experience with security or with running a large organization. It appears that the main reason he is there is because of loyalty to President Trump and his hard line view of immigration. Maybe he will learn from Kristy Noem to be a bit less flamboyant in his public persona, but otherwise, I doubt this will be an improvement. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason, I’m trying to understand ICE detaining people who have pending cases (like asylum or I-130). It seems the position is that a pending case doesn’t give legal status, so they can still be detained. But I’ve read about a lot of habeas cases where judges ordered release because the person wasn’t a danger or flight risk and ICE lacked proper justification. If courts are finding this in individual cases, how can ICE keep doing it more broadly? Also, since many people can’t afford lawyers or habeas petitions, two people with very similar situations might have completely different outcomes – one who can afford legal help gets released, while another may remain detained for months. How is this a justice?
You are correct that a person who can afford to file a habeas might get released and a person who cannot afford that will remain detained. It is absolutely the opposite of justice. There have been some court decisions that have addressed the detention of non-citizens more generally, but in some cases they are limited to certain states, and in other cases, DHS has effectively been ignoring (or partially ignoring) the court orders. For example, there is a court decision from California stating that certain people who entered the US are eligible for a bond hearing with an Immigration Judge (whether they fit into this class of people depends on exactly how they entered the US). After the decision, some judges were allowing bond motions, but it seems that most are not. In short, the patchwork of decisions and DHS/DOJ’s effort to keep as many people detained as possible is causing great suffering and great confusion. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason, what do you think about https://www.aol.com/articles/justice-jackson-authors-unanimous-scotus-211227128.html? I thought asylum could be granted based on the past persecution, but it seems now judges are saying – even if you had been persecuted in the past, we can’t grant asylum as we don’t believe it’ll happen again in the future. How can someone then realistically prove that they’ll suffer the same fate in the future(in case of government persecution for example), unless government acknowledges it.
We’ll see how this starts to affect cases, but one fear is that it will give the BIA an excuse to ignore federal circuit court precedents. In other words, the federal courts have been more likely to follow due process of law, whereas the BIA simply wants to deport as many people as possible. If the BIA feels free to ignore the federal courts, they will issue worse decisions. However, in practical effect, if the new BIA appeal rule goes into effect, there will be no more BIA appeals in individual cases (only in cases where the BIA wants to issue a precedential decision), and I suspect that the only hope for Justice will be for people who can afford to appeal their case to the federal courts. Take care, Jason
If an asylum case is not won in asylum office…It’s going to be costly to continue to go on. EOIR, BIA, federal courts are going to be more difficult thank asylum office.Not to mention continued asylum process’s harm to asylum seekers. Is there anyway that asylum seekers can quickly win at asylum office level ?
In some cases, they can, but at the moment, all asylum decisions are still paused. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I am waiting for my EAD, and my EAD receipt is valid for one more year. Do you think, things will be better? I am in this country since 2018, pending decision since Feb 2023.
EADs for people from banned countries are currently on hold. Hopefully, the hold will end before your automatic extension ends, and if you have another year, you will probably be ok. Whether things will get better, we shall see. I keep hoping that the Administration will declare victory on the “immigration invasion” and ease up, and that may yet happen, but on the other hand, fear-mongering and scape-goating seems much easier for them than dealing with actual policy problems in our country. Take care, Jason
Hello, Please I would like to know if eventually I am referred to immigration court based on pollical asylum, what are the processes and how do I prepare for it. Also can I obtain Canadian visa here in the US as a pending asylum applicant with 5 years EAD
Regards.
On March 7, 2018, I did a post about what happens when asylum is denied and referred to court, and maybe that would be of interest. In terms of the Canadian visa, I do not see why you could not qualify for some types of Canadian visas. However, it is not something I know much about and you would do well to talk with a Canadian lawyer to see your options. I have had asylum seeker clients try to go to Canada to try to seek asylum there. They were turned away at the border and in some cases, detained when they got back to the US, so I would not try that. If you want to seek asylum in Canada, talk to a Canadian lawyer about that first to see if it is an option. Take care, Jason
Hi, I’m not Jason, but I looked into this route and wanted to share what I found (not legal advice). I spoke with a Canadian lawyer who explained that the U.S. and Canada have a Safe Third Country Agreement, meaning if you applied for asylum in the U.S., you generally can’t apply in Canada.
Another option is Express Entry. Your score depends on factors like education, job skills, and experience. You can check your score here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/express-entry/check-score.html
If your score is high enough (depending on the occupation), you may get nominated and get permanent residence. I’d strongly recommend speaking with a lawyer first to confirm you have all required documents. In my case, I was already halfway through preparing(including paying for education evaluation etc) when the lawyer told me I needed a valid passport, which I can’t obtain due to political persecution from my home country.
Hi Jason,
Is there any update regarding the asylum decision hold that was placed at the end of November? It has been over 90 days, and while monitoring the USCIS website and other platforms, there has still been complete silence.
Perhaps you have heard something or have some idea of what we should expect next.
Thank you for everything you are doing for us.
I have not heard anything. At the time, I talked to a few asylum officers who gave me the impression that they thought it would not last that long. At my most recent asylum interview (a week or two ago), the officer did not have any idea when it would end. So in short, I don’t know, and it seems to be continuing for longer than most people initially expected. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason,
Thanks for keeping us updated. I am currently an asylee and in the process of obtaining my GC. Very nervous that the same thing will happen to asylees. What are your thoughts on this?
Thanks.
I have not heard about any effort to do the same thing to asylees. Also, asylees do not have a similar provision in the law about being taken into custody, so I think there is even less of a legitimate legal basis to target asylees in this way. I do think USCIS may give extra scrutiny to GC applications filed by asylees, and so it is good to review your old asylum case and be familiar with facts and dates, in case you are asked about that. Take care, Jason
Thanks for the response, more scrutiny doesn’t mean another individual immigration court hearing though ? I had three and it was so stressful. Like this won’t be as deep kind of a review? They reviewed me for 8 years like come on…
So far, the cases have not be anything like a new asylum interview. In many cases, there are some questions questions about asylum, but they do not seem very extensive. I have not heard about any applicant running into trouble or being denied a GC due to the additional questions. Take care, Jason
The fact that figures like Texas AG, who have done may wrongs, and who have hurt the community and who are not held accountable and who maintains a huge political base despite losing to John Cornyn in the first round.
Says a lot about the current state of M*GA. They really don’t like asylum community and to achieve that, they would look past anything.
What makes the dislike of the asylum community so strong ? Like strong enough to overlook many other significant personal failings or incompetencies ?
I ask this because, if a politician can easily win 40% of the votes simply by being anti-immigrant and anti-asylum alone, thats a serious danger to the asylum seekers. No matter how unqualified a politician is, or how qualified his or her opponent is…if a person can easily claim 40% of the votes by simply being anti-asylum…then it will be hard to get pro-asylum or asylum-neutral lawmakers in power…
Is there anyway for the voters to not be uniformly against asylum seekers ? Should we meter how many asylum seekers we admit or grant as well ? I feel radical advocacy of asylum seeker by asylum advocates can trigger severe backlash of people. Could it be a good idea for asylum seekers to not seek asylum but seek a lesser form of immigration benefits as a settlement ? In this way, until more pro-asylum lawmakers are in power, they can seek full immigrant benefits ?
Or in another way, I guess my previous suggestion feels like I am blaming asylum seekers. Could some policies be implemented to increase the cost for people to be anti-asylum ? Like jail time, fine ? Because if people can freely be anti-asylum, then of course they will yield to their instinct. And without some mechanism to curb that, I am worried that if the anti-asylum politicians run some ads, then immediately they will get 40% of the votes…
Looking through history, I never see the respectability politics work very well. The homosexuals didn’t gain their rights be being conforming to the normal people’s standard or appealing to them. They marched and inconvenienced normal people so they have to make a step back. That’s why homosexuals gain their rights. I wonder could the asylum community organize some March, inconvenience the anti-asylum crowd and make their life harder…?
Final bonus question: Between us citizen homosexuals and largely non-homosexual asylum seekers, which group has more political power, in relative to their opposition to? This will help me gauge how likely, if the asylum community takes the same combative approach towards their opposition, they can be successful.
I think the anti-immigrant people have been more successful as painting immigrants as a threat. Ironically, the over-the-top cruelty of ICE has started to turn public opinion more in favor of immigrants. I think we need to continue to shine a light on how immigrants help our country, and how the Administration’s policies have harmed many innocent people, non-citizens and citizens. Take care, Jason
You focused on the positive side and that’s good.
What about people who try are actively trying to hamper us ? Shouldn’t there be some form of punitive measure ?
I have no idea what that would even look like. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason, have you heard of anyone getting detained if they came on a visa (humanitarian parole) and applied for asylum within 1 year but the i-94 has now expired? No criminal charges or anything. Thanks!
I have heard about a few cases of people being called for ICE check-ins when they entered via humanitarian parole and then filed for asylum. I am not sure, but some may have been detained, though if I remember correctly, the people who I heard about were released with ankle monitors. If you get called in for an ICE check-in, it would be good to prepare for detention, just in case, though hopefully, that would not happen. Take care, Jason
Thanks Jason! Do you happen to remember what nationality these people had?
The cases I am thinking of are people from Afghanistan, and they got ankle monitors. There were a few of them in one family. Also, a lawyer who I know had some issues with Afghan parolees being detained, but I do not know all the details in terms of whether they were paroled into the US. Take care, Jason